I am in love with Chevrolet Cruze.

[ShawnD1]

I rented an automatic turbo cruze a while back. Worst car to drive EVER.

That must have felt unbelievably mushy and vague.
When I drove my brother's WRX, I noticed that the turbo added a weird yet predictable feel. It has no power, then suddenly there is a surge of power. Driving my Corolla is a bit like that too. Push a little, nothing happens. Push a bit more, still nothing happens. Push 1/1000 of an inch more and suddenly it drops 2 gears and there's a surge of power. I don't even want to imagine what it would feel like to pair my Corolla with a turbo. The pedal would be 90% "I don't know what's going to happen" zone. The first 5% pushed down is slow, the last 5% is high rpm and full turbo. The middle 90%..... who knows what gear or how much boost it will have.

Slow shift coupled with shifting in to neutral when stopped means you can floor it and not move until it decides to get in gear (literally)

:awe:
Does it really do that? That's just begging for a transmission failure. The light turns green, you floor it, the engine revs up, then the transmission does a neutral drop. That is really hard on the transmission.

 

[LTC8K6]

That must have felt unbelievably mushy and vague.
When I drove my brother's WRX, I noticed that the turbo added a weird yet predictable feel. It has no power, then suddenly there is a surge of power. Driving my Corolla is a bit like that too. Push a little, nothing happens. Push a bit more, still nothing happens. Push 1/1000 of an inch more and suddenly it drops 2 gears and there's a surge of power. I don't even want to imagine what it would feel like to pair my Corolla with a turbo. The pedal would be 90% "I don't know what's going to happen" zone. The first 5% pushed down is slow, the last 5% is high rpm and full turbo. The middle 90%..... who knows what gear or how much boost it will have.




:awe:
Does it really do that? That's just begging for a transmission failure. The light turns green, you floor it, the engine revs up, then the transmission does a neutral drop. That is really hard on the transmission.

Modern auto trannys are more robust. Bands are long gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_6T40_transmission

http://www.autotrends.org/2008/04/23/transmissions/

 

[thomsbrain]

It looks good for its class, but most beautiful car on the market?

 

[Ferzerp]

:awe:
Does it really do that? That's just begging for a transmission failure. The light turns green, you floor it, the engine revs up, then the transmission does a neutral drop. That is really hard on the transmission.

Yes, it really does this. I thought it was broken until I looked it up.

 

[PricklyPete]

You could buy a Mazda 3 that gets the same gas mileage as the typical large sedan... but "the dynamics" are awesome!

New Mazda 3 has dynamics and fuel efficiency. Best of both worlds...now if they can just work a bit on the design/interior. Still, it would be the car I'd buy if I was in that market.

 

[busydude]

It looks good for its class, but most beautiful car on the market?

It is my opinion.. I am also interested in yours.

 

[IGemini]

I've gotten to do some swaps for a GM dealership lately. Though trying out a Camaro or Volt would be nice (real pipe dream on the latter), I wouldn't mind getting behind the wheel of a Cruze or Sonic just to try something new.

 

[Ferzerp]

That means you have not driven many cars.

My worst cars to drive:

1) Chrysler Sebring
2) Chevy Cobalt
3) Chevy Aveo
4) Chrysler PT Cruiser(Yeah, I even hate to admit that I've driven this car.)
5) Chevy HHR
6) Toyota Camry(Although, I've found Camry hybrid to be much better and lively.)
7) Toyota Yaris
8) Kia Rio

I rent cars all the time. It was the worst driving experience I have ever had. My first car was an 89 Fesitva, and I would rather drive that than an automatic turbo cruze.

 

[alfa147x]

I think I need to replace Chevy Cruze with ipad 2/iPhone 4S and post a thread in the Apple sub forum. :hmm:

Then I would agree with you. The Cruze is a step up from GM's crap but still is in the okay / mediocre range.

 

[busydude]

I rent cars all the time. It was the worst driving experience I have ever had. My first car was an 89 Fesitva, and I would rather drive that than an automatic turbo cruze.

Hmm.. is the first turbo+small engine from GM? If yes, that might explain the sluggishness.. due to automatic transmission.

 

[Ferzerp]

Not sure, but driving it, despite the linked smooth torque curve, was the following.

wait .5 seconds for the car to decide to move
speed up really slowly
hit 3000 rpm or so (can't remember the exact rpm here)
get ALL the power
transmission shifts to below the power
wait
get ALL the power
shift again
etc


Of course, being a rental, it could have just been broken, but it was a very low mileage car. Under 3k IIRC.

 

[ShawnD1]

Not sure, but driving it, despite the linked smooth torque curve, was the following.

wait .5 seconds for the car to decide to move
speed up really slowly
hit 3000 rpm or so (can't remember the exact rpm here)
get ALL the power
transmission shifts to below the power
wait
get ALL the power
shift again
etc

Sounds like my Corolla. In "D" the shifting was very conservative. It would be in top gear all the time then immediately shift when the pedal is lightly touched. The way around that was to use gear "3" instead. It would delay shifts and it would stay at higher rpm all the time. It made the car a lot easier to drive, but it also increased fuel consumption by about 10-20%.

I was driving around in my new impreza with a manual and the built in fuel consumption thing said it was using about as much fuel as my automatic corolla was. Keep in mind the impreza is a 2.5L instead of 1.8L, it has 170HP instead of 132, the AWD adds extra drivetrain losses and it's a heavier car. Automatic transmission = evil gas guzzling device invented by oil companies.

 

[Ferzerp]

I was driving around in my new impreza with a manual and the built in fuel consumption thing said it was using about as much fuel as my automatic corolla was. Keep in mind the impreza is a 2.5L instead of 1.8L, it has 170HP instead of 132, the AWD adds extra drivetrain losses and it's a heavier car. Automatic transmission = evil gas guzzling device invented by oil companies.

The auto on my Challenger is just fine (results in about a 1mpg loss). If I want control I put it in to auto-stick. It shifts faster than I can anyway. The only downside is that I can't skip gears though. That and I give up about 7mph top speed, but acceleration-wise, I've not seen a drag slip for the manual that can beat the auto on that car.

 

[satyajitmenon]

Not sure, but driving it, despite the linked smooth torque curve, was the following.

wait .5 seconds for the car to decide to move
speed up really slowly
hit 3000 rpm or so (can't remember the exact rpm here)
get ALL the power
transmission shifts to below the power
wait
get ALL the power
shift again
etc


Of course, being a rental, it could have just been broken, but it was a very low mileage car. Under 3k IIRC.

Odd. I had a rental Cruze 1.4T earlier this year and I actually thought it was "sprightly". Certainly as much (if not more) get up n go than the usual bevy of rental I-4 fusions/malibus I'm used to.

 

[Ferzerp]

Odd. I had a rental Cruze 1.4T earlier this year and I actually thought it was "sprightly". Certainly as much (if not more) get up n go than the usual bevy of rental I-4 fusions/malibus I'm used to.

I drove a Malibu as the subsequent rental and actually preferred it because, while slower, it still was more consistent.

 

[HopJokey]

I'd take a new Ford Focus over the Cruze.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like my Corolla. In "D" the shifting was very conservative. It would be in top gear all the time then immediately shift when the pedal is lightly touched. The way around that was to use gear "3" instead. It would delay shifts and it would stay at higher rpm all the time. It made the car a lot easier to drive, but it also increased fuel consumption by about 10-20%.

I was driving around in my new impreza with a manual and the built in fuel consumption thing said it was using about as much fuel as my automatic corolla was. Keep in mind the impreza is a 2.5L instead of 1.8L, it has 170HP instead of 132, the AWD adds extra drivetrain losses and it's a heavier car. Automatic transmission = evil gas guzzling device invented by oil companies.

Autos are often rated higher than manuals for fuel economy with the same engine.

Comparing the mileage of a Corolla with a slipping auto tranny to your Impreza is silly.

2009 Corolla 1.8L Auto is rated at 27/30/35mpg
2011 Impreza 2.5L manual is rated at 20/22/27mpg

No contest on fuel economy. Corolla well in the lead.

A 2012 Impreza 2.0L manual is much better at 25/28/34mpg

 

[mmntech]

That means you have not driven many cars.

My worst cars to drive:

1) Chrysler Sebring
2) Chevy Cobalt
3) Chevy Aveo
4) Chrysler PT Cruiser(Yeah, I even hate to admit that I've driven this car.)
5) Chevy HHR
6) Toyota Camry(Although, I've found Camry hybrid to be much better and lively.)
7) Toyota Yaris
8) Kia Rio

I agree with all those except the Camry. Toyotas drive good, they're just horribly bland cars. My list in no particular order would be...
-Chevy Cobalt/Pontiac G5
-Smart Fortwo
-Mercedes B200
-Dodge Caliber
-Suzuki SX4 4x2 (really bad winter handling)
-Kia Rio
-Kia Sedona

I've been wanting to try the Cruze but people keep telling me it's just another Cobalt. I've driven a lot of the recent Malibus. Not a fan of them. GM vehicles always drive really stiff. The gas peddle is especially tight. Feels like you have to stomp it to get the car to go anywhere. Interestingly, their commercial vehicles (Express/Savana) aren't like that.

 

[ashishmishra]

Autos are often rated higher than manuals for fuel economy with the same engine.

That is usually because the gear ratios on the Autos are taller than the Manuals.

For example the 2012 Mazda 3

Auto:

First Gear Ratio 1): 3.55
Second Gear Ratio 1): 2.02
Third Gear Ratio 1): 1.45
Fourth Gear Ratio 1): 1.00
Fifth Gear Ratio 1): 0.70
Sixth Gear Ratio 1): 0.59
Final Drive Axle Ratio 1): 3.89

Manual:

First Gear Ratio 1): 3.21
Second Gear Ratio 1): 1.91
Third Gear Ratio 1): 1.36
Fourth Gear Ratio 1): 1.02
Fifth Gear Ratio 1): 0.94
Sixth Gear Ratio 1): 0.79
Reverse Ratio 1): 3.45
Final Drive Axle Ratio 1): 4.18/3.52

Sporty drivers get better acceleration from the manual with a slight hit to Fuel Economy, whereas normal drivers get the extra mpg. If you equip the manual with the exact same gear ratios as a conventional auto transmission you will be better fuel economy from the manual. Mechanical linkages are always superior in terms of efficiency.

Obviously dual clutch transmissions being mechanical in nature as well, are exempt from this logic.

 

[CraigRT]

I saw a white LTZ or top of the line trim Cruze the other day, definitely a good looking car.
If you're talking sedans, its hard to pick between that or the Focus, but the Focus does have a hatch version and possibly wagon version, so that's pretty hard to beat.

 

[Arkaign]

I saw a white LTZ or top of the line trim Cruze the other day, definitely a good looking car.
If you're talking sedans, its hard to pick between that or the Focus, but the Focus does have a hatch version and possibly wagon version, so that's pretty hard to beat.

Yeah, both the Focus and the Fiesta seem like they were really designed to be hatches this generation, they just look a bit odd in sedan form.

 

[Throckmorton]

FYI the Cruze seems to be a really safe car. It has G safety ratings from the IIHS, even for side impact, thanks to all the airbags. Remember when domestic small cars were the most unsafe vehicles you could buy?

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1044442_2011-chevrolet-cruze-makes-the-global-safety-honor-roll
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=710

 

[bobdole369]

Any love for the Chevy Sonic yet? Looking for a tiny grocery getter in the next 2 years.

 

[Throckmorton]

Any love for the Chevy Sonic yet? Looking for a tiny grocery getter in the next 2 years.

I think it looks great, and is also a safe car http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=737

 

[ShawnD1]

Autos are often rated higher than manuals for fuel economy with the same engine.

Comparing the mileage of a Corolla with a slipping auto tranny to your Impreza is silly.

2009 Corolla 1.8L Auto is rated at 27/30/35mpg
2011 Impreza 2.5L manual is rated at 20/22/27mpg

No contest on fuel economy. Corolla well in the lead.

A 2012 Impreza 2.0L manual is much better at 25/28/34mpg

Depends a lot on how you drive. I must drive a manual pretty good because right now that 2008 Impreza says it's doing 8.2L/100km when driving around the city; no highway driving. That works out to 28.6mpg (US) in the city. I'm very surprised at how good the mileage is. I was expecting this thing to guzzle gas like no tomorrow since the EPA ratings for Subarus are consistently horrible. 2012 is probably the first year where they didn't get a horrible gas mileage rating.

That is usually because the gear ratios on the Autos are taller than the Manuals.

That shouldn't have much effect on the city mileage though. Having shorter gears just means you use a higher gear. Instead of 2000rpm in gear 2 for an automatic, you might be doing 2000rpm in gear 3 for a manual. This stops being true when you get to the last gear, but most city driving doesn't get that fast anyway.